Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 25, 2009 at 4:07 PM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420867June 25, 2009 at 4:07 PM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #421028
DWCAP
Participant[quote=felix]
CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath[/quote]This is true, but it doesnt necessary mean that more C02 is better for them than less. Plants ‘respire’ in the oppoist way we do, taking in CO2 and releasing Oxygen, in the process using water. But they are often limited by other factors like water or nitrogen. Constantly increasing levels of CO2 will not corrolate to constantly increasing plant growth, and may actually reduce growth in some areas (50% DECREASE in tree growth in the tropics).
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
[quote=felix]There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now[/quote]
Actually, not true.
“Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1900, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
(not a big fan of quoting wiki, but it is easy)[quote=felix]Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade[/quote]
Totally misleading. A decade in Geological time is absolutly nothing. Like the housing market, or unemployment, global temps can take temporary dips on the trajectory upwards. Same as your link about global warming not being true because global temp’s fell last year. 1 year. This isnt a sigmoidal function, it isnt smooth. And you are correct about solar activity affecting things, but if your timeframe of reference is only a decade, you will miss alot.
“Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.”http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf
[quote=felix]So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?[/quote]
All of the above. Global warming will change the climate as we know it. Some areas will get warmer, and more usable. Some will get wetter, some dryer. Some will submerge under increasing ocean levels. Some may even get COLDER as ocean currents change heat flow. The point is that things will be different, and that will hurt some people, while helping others.
And the fact we dont know exactly what will happen is a terrible argument about why we shouldnt worry about it. Shouldnt we try to find out and limit the potential negative consequences?
[quote=felix] Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.[/quote]
National boundries and immigration restrictions limit the amount of movement from areas where warming hurts to areas where it helps. Canda, US, Russia, Nordic countries helped, everyone else hurt.
[quote=felix]Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.[/quote]Again misleading, SOME populations are increasing, while others are decreasing.
“Five of the 13 populations in Canada appear to be on the decline. At least one – the Baffin Bay population – is the victim of severe overhunting on the Greenland side of the polar bear’s range. Of the three that are increasing, the Viscount Melville and McClintock Channel populations are on the rebound only because of the Canadian Inuit’s voluntary decision to severely reduce their harvest.”
http://www.thestar.com/arcticinperil/article/279817Reducing our hunting and then saying the population isnt suffering is just bad science. All the long term studies I have seen say things are not going well for the polar bear, but I would like to read your sources that say that things are looking up for the polar bear in any long term sense.
[quote=felix]So the big lies are that not only isn’t the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn’t want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
[/quote]
Those links suck. One is an opnion piece that says the entire reason we paid $4.5/gallon gas was because of AL Gore and his politics. Bull. That was due to a bubble in the price of oil, driven by speculators and an investment furvor.
Then it goes on to abunch of ad home attacks that have no proof what so ever. I especially like part about how 38 parts per million cant raise temps because it cant, cause I said so. I just couldnt read any farther, it was all so much political crap. The high price of gas is not an Al Gore conspiracy.As for you second link, dont you think that it would be worrysome to see “the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down”? Increasing temperature swings with an overall temperature increase (in centuries) is exactly what a non-political global warming scientist would predict.
June 25, 2009 at 11:09 AM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420103Participant[quote=GoUSC]
GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.[/quote]I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.
Is it:
-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?
-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?
-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?
-That Global temperatures are increasing?
-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?
-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?
Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in.
June 25, 2009 at 11:09 AM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420335Participant[quote=GoUSC]
GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.[/quote]I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.
Is it:
-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?
-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?
-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?
-That Global temperatures are increasing?
-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?
-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?
Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in.
June 25, 2009 at 11:09 AM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420606Participant[quote=GoUSC]
GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.[/quote]I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.
Is it:
-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?
-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?
-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?
-That Global temperatures are increasing?
-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?
-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?
Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in.
June 25, 2009 at 11:09 AM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420672Participant[quote=GoUSC]
GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.[/quote]I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.
Is it:
-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?
-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?
-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?
-That Global temperatures are increasing?
-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?
-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?
Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in.
June 25, 2009 at 11:09 AM in reply to: OT: Cap and Tax. Maybe One of the Largest Tax Increases in a Long While? #420833Participant[quote=GoUSC]
GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.[/quote]I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.
Is it:
-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?
-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?
-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?
-That Global temperatures are increasing?
-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?
-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?
Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in.
Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Effective Demand]
I still can’t imagine what the housing market would look like with 7% rates. I don’t think too many of todays homebuyers have thought that far ahead. But that would make the cost of money increase 35-40% and decrease buyers purchasing power significantly. [/quote]Strictly speaking, rates at 7% instead of 5% would increase one’s pre-tax monthly payments by 16-18% (assuming same purchase price), and, once you account for tax deduction, the increase could be even less, especially at the high end.
Consider a hypothetical household with a 200K pretax income, 850K purchase price with 20% down (on the upper bound of new conforming), with hefty MR and HOA. If interest rates go from 5% to 7%, nominal monthly payments go up 17%, post tax deduction housing costs go up 13%.
[quote]The multi-trillion dollar question is.. how long can the Fed keep 30 yr rates this low. [/quote]
It’s supply and demand, and there are many factors affecting supply and demand.
For example, interest rates north of 6% would cut off refinancing (half of all people with equity refinanced in 2003, the other half refinanced in the last 6 months), and, without people refinancing, volume of new mortgage originations and supply of mortgage backed securities would shrink dramatically. [/quote]
I think what you miss in the calculation above is the emotional/psycological aspect of 7% interest rates. Alot of people are running out and buying now becuase rates are so low, and prices arnt bad (if you can find one). Atleast that is what is getting them off the fence and looking. I dont know how many times I have had to listen to someone trying to get me to start trying to buy a house in the past 4 months or so, but EVERY single one of them I can remember started the argument with low rates.
Now 7% is historically quite low, in the late 70’s to 80’s people couldnt even dream of 7%. But we have had low rates for nearly a decade now. Twice falling below 5% for an extended period of time. People have gotten use to paying really low interest rates, and they wont like it when things go up.7% (right now) will do two things:
1) People would be less enthuiastic about houseing. There will always be bulls, there will always be people who buy houses. I am talking percentages, and it would be reduced, leading to lower demand and…….
2) NAR would be screaming their bloody heads off till either the government started “intervening” again; or they start suicided bombing the Fed.
Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Effective Demand]
I still can’t imagine what the housing market would look like with 7% rates. I don’t think too many of todays homebuyers have thought that far ahead. But that would make the cost of money increase 35-40% and decrease buyers purchasing power significantly. [/quote]Strictly speaking, rates at 7% instead of 5% would increase one’s pre-tax monthly payments by 16-18% (assuming same purchase price), and, once you account for tax deduction, the increase could be even less, especially at the high end.
Consider a hypothetical household with a 200K pretax income, 850K purchase price with 20% down (on the upper bound of new conforming), with hefty MR and HOA. If interest rates go from 5% to 7%, nominal monthly payments go up 17%, post tax deduction housing costs go up 13%.
[quote]The multi-trillion dollar question is.. how long can the Fed keep 30 yr rates this low. [/quote]
It’s supply and demand, and there are many factors affecting supply and demand.
For example, interest rates north of 6% would cut off refinancing (half of all people with equity refinanced in 2003, the other half refinanced in the last 6 months), and, without people refinancing, volume of new mortgage originations and supply of mortgage backed securities would shrink dramatically. [/quote]
I think what you miss in the calculation above is the emotional/psycological aspect of 7% interest rates. Alot of people are running out and buying now becuase rates are so low, and prices arnt bad (if you can find one). Atleast that is what is getting them off the fence and looking. I dont know how many times I have had to listen to someone trying to get me to start trying to buy a house in the past 4 months or so, but EVERY single one of them I can remember started the argument with low rates.
Now 7% is historically quite low, in the late 70’s to 80’s people couldnt even dream of 7%. But we have had low rates for nearly a decade now. Twice falling below 5% for an extended period of time. People have gotten use to paying really low interest rates, and they wont like it when things go up.7% (right now) will do two things:
1) People would be less enthuiastic about houseing. There will always be bulls, there will always be people who buy houses. I am talking percentages, and it would be reduced, leading to lower demand and…….
2) NAR would be screaming their bloody heads off till either the government started “intervening” again; or they start suicided bombing the Fed.
Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Effective Demand]
I still can’t imagine what the housing market would look like with 7% rates. I don’t think too many of todays homebuyers have thought that far ahead. But that would make the cost of money increase 35-40% and decrease buyers purchasing power significantly. [/quote]Strictly speaking, rates at 7% instead of 5% would increase one’s pre-tax monthly payments by 16-18% (assuming same purchase price), and, once you account for tax deduction, the increase could be even less, especially at the high end.
Consider a hypothetical household with a 200K pretax income, 850K purchase price with 20% down (on the upper bound of new conforming), with hefty MR and HOA. If interest rates go from 5% to 7%, nominal monthly payments go up 17%, post tax deduction housing costs go up 13%.
[quote]The multi-trillion dollar question is.. how long can the Fed keep 30 yr rates this low. [/quote]
It’s supply and demand, and there are many factors affecting supply and demand.
For example, interest rates north of 6% would cut off refinancing (half of all people with equity refinanced in 2003, the other half refinanced in the last 6 months), and, without people refinancing, volume of new mortgage originations and supply of mortgage backed securities would shrink dramatically. [/quote]
I think what you miss in the calculation above is the emotional/psycological aspect of 7% interest rates. Alot of people are running out and buying now becuase rates are so low, and prices arnt bad (if you can find one). Atleast that is what is getting them off the fence and looking. I dont know how many times I have had to listen to someone trying to get me to start trying to buy a house in the past 4 months or so, but EVERY single one of them I can remember started the argument with low rates.
Now 7% is historically quite low, in the late 70’s to 80’s people couldnt even dream of 7%. But we have had low rates for nearly a decade now. Twice falling below 5% for an extended period of time. People have gotten use to paying really low interest rates, and they wont like it when things go up.7% (right now) will do two things:
1) People would be less enthuiastic about houseing. There will always be bulls, there will always be people who buy houses. I am talking percentages, and it would be reduced, leading to lower demand and…….
2) NAR would be screaming their bloody heads off till either the government started “intervening” again; or they start suicided bombing the Fed.
Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Effective Demand]
I still can’t imagine what the housing market would look like with 7% rates. I don’t think too many of todays homebuyers have thought that far ahead. But that would make the cost of money increase 35-40% and decrease buyers purchasing power significantly. [/quote]Strictly speaking, rates at 7% instead of 5% would increase one’s pre-tax monthly payments by 16-18% (assuming same purchase price), and, once you account for tax deduction, the increase could be even less, especially at the high end.
Consider a hypothetical household with a 200K pretax income, 850K purchase price with 20% down (on the upper bound of new conforming), with hefty MR and HOA. If interest rates go from 5% to 7%, nominal monthly payments go up 17%, post tax deduction housing costs go up 13%.
[quote]The multi-trillion dollar question is.. how long can the Fed keep 30 yr rates this low. [/quote]
It’s supply and demand, and there are many factors affecting supply and demand.
For example, interest rates north of 6% would cut off refinancing (half of all people with equity refinanced in 2003, the other half refinanced in the last 6 months), and, without people refinancing, volume of new mortgage originations and supply of mortgage backed securities would shrink dramatically. [/quote]
I think what you miss in the calculation above is the emotional/psycological aspect of 7% interest rates. Alot of people are running out and buying now becuase rates are so low, and prices arnt bad (if you can find one). Atleast that is what is getting them off the fence and looking. I dont know how many times I have had to listen to someone trying to get me to start trying to buy a house in the past 4 months or so, but EVERY single one of them I can remember started the argument with low rates.
Now 7% is historically quite low, in the late 70’s to 80’s people couldnt even dream of 7%. But we have had low rates for nearly a decade now. Twice falling below 5% for an extended period of time. People have gotten use to paying really low interest rates, and they wont like it when things go up.7% (right now) will do two things:
1) People would be less enthuiastic about houseing. There will always be bulls, there will always be people who buy houses. I am talking percentages, and it would be reduced, leading to lower demand and…….
2) NAR would be screaming their bloody heads off till either the government started “intervening” again; or they start suicided bombing the Fed.
Participant[quote=Eugene][quote=Effective Demand]
I still can’t imagine what the housing market would look like with 7% rates. I don’t think too many of todays homebuyers have thought that far ahead. But that would make the cost of money increase 35-40% and decrease buyers purchasing power significantly. [/quote]Strictly speaking, rates at 7% instead of 5% would increase one’s pre-tax monthly payments by 16-18% (assuming same purchase price), and, once you account for tax deduction, the increase could be even less, especially at the high end.
Consider a hypothetical household with a 200K pretax income, 850K purchase price with 20% down (on the upper bound of new conforming), with hefty MR and HOA. If interest rates go from 5% to 7%, nominal monthly payments go up 17%, post tax deduction housing costs go up 13%.
[quote]The multi-trillion dollar question is.. how long can the Fed keep 30 yr rates this low. [/quote]
It’s supply and demand, and there are many factors affecting supply and demand.
For example, interest rates north of 6% would cut off refinancing (half of all people with equity refinanced in 2003, the other half refinanced in the last 6 months), and, without people refinancing, volume of new mortgage originations and supply of mortgage backed securities would shrink dramatically. [/quote]
I think what you miss in the calculation above is the emotional/psycological aspect of 7% interest rates. Alot of people are running out and buying now becuase rates are so low, and prices arnt bad (if you can find one). Atleast that is what is getting them off the fence and looking. I dont know how many times I have had to listen to someone trying to get me to start trying to buy a house in the past 4 months or so, but EVERY single one of them I can remember started the argument with low rates.
Now 7% is historically quite low, in the late 70’s to 80’s people couldnt even dream of 7%. But we have had low rates for nearly a decade now. Twice falling below 5% for an extended period of time. People have gotten use to paying really low interest rates, and they wont like it when things go up.7% (right now) will do two things:
1) People would be less enthuiastic about houseing. There will always be bulls, there will always be people who buy houses. I am talking percentages, and it would be reduced, leading to lower demand and…….
2) NAR would be screaming their bloody heads off till either the government started “intervening” again; or they start suicided bombing the Fed.
ParticipantI have purhased two kayaks from craigslist in the past year. I got both for a total of $400, plus two paddles and life vests, though I didnt really want the life vests. (I already had my own).
My advice is to find a kayak style you like, and look atleast daily. Good deals go quick, and crappy ones just hang.
You also need to remember that it is summer now, and that is when people actually use the kayaks. Deals may be few and far between.
ParticipantI have purhased two kayaks from craigslist in the past year. I got both for a total of $400, plus two paddles and life vests, though I didnt really want the life vests. (I already had my own).
My advice is to find a kayak style you like, and look atleast daily. Good deals go quick, and crappy ones just hang.
You also need to remember that it is summer now, and that is when people actually use the kayaks. Deals may be few and far between.
ParticipantI have purhased two kayaks from craigslist in the past year. I got both for a total of $400, plus two paddles and life vests, though I didnt really want the life vests. (I already had my own).
My advice is to find a kayak style you like, and look atleast daily. Good deals go quick, and crappy ones just hang.
You also need to remember that it is summer now, and that is when people actually use the kayaks. Deals may be few and far between.
-
AuthorPosts
